For the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, the soul had something that was called “fora”, meaning direction. In other words, the soul was thought to have taken up, long before the birth of the body it inhabited, the direction of good or evil. Thus, man was considered to be born good or bad.
Quite some time has passed since then. Meanwhile, psychology has sustained that hereditary elements account less than behavioral ones for a person’s conduct. A person turns good or bad, according to the conditioning s/he receives during childhood.
Notwithstanding that, my late grandmother was certain that it's what people are made of that is of importance. No matter how many hardships one runs into in the course of his life, if he has a good soul, he will keep his goodness forever - and vice versa.
If this is so, however, how guilty is someone who commits murder? What if he is (genetically or at soul level) predisposed to do so? Can he be found guilty for his genes or his soul’s predisposition? How can these be his fault?
What do you think?
7 comments:
"If this is so, however, how guilty is someone who commits murder? What if he is (genetically or at soul level) predisposed to do so? Can he be found guilty for his genes or his soul’s predisposition? How can these be his fault?"
This is one clear point where one should see the usefulness of ability to think in terms of absolutes. It might very well be that one is predisposed to murder someone else, but who is predisposed to be murdered? So, predispositions are relative, limited and conditioned.
Instead of thinking in terms of predispositions, think independent of them. If predispositions are in the way of thinking, erase them. Or at least diminish them sufficiently. In thought first and then in behaviour, if it is easier this way, or in behaviour first and then in thought, if it is easier that way.
It is a duty to do it. Thus, there is fault of not having done it. Fault is not in the murder, but in the predisposition to murder. The society only deals with the consequences, not the real causes. The real causes are entirely in the individual and must be addressed individually.
I agree with you totally and it's the conclusion I was intending to reach through conversation. The individual has to deal with the causes inside him and do his duty. That's one of the dimensions of being human.
I didn't really grasp your comment "Fault is not in the murder, but in the predisposition to murder", however. Unless you mean "...but in not addressing the predisposition to murder".
"I didn't really grasp your comment "Fault is not in the murder, but in the predisposition to murder", however. Unless you mean "...but in not addressing the predisposition to murder"."
Well, yes, I was just making a snappy statement through simple contrasts. In reality, everything is thoroughly mixed and simplifications may easily become oversimplifications.
Predisposition in itself is nothing, the question is whether you have it :) and if you have it, the question is whether you're doing anything about it. Then, when it comes to committing murder (or any other unwholesome act), the fault of not having dealt with the predisposition has finally gone so far as the act itself. This way, of course there is some clear fault in the act itself, but it is the end consequence in a row of causes.
Hey, I just realised that Herman Melville's Billy Budd is exactly about this topic. According to the morale of that story, the society can't really address the predispositions. At least for judicial purposes, the society should properly concentrate on the consequences.
"Hey, I just realised that Herman Melville's Billy Budd is exactly about this topic."
I thought it was about the shortcomings of law when it comes to the application of justice. But, yes, it is alao about the fact that society cannot address predispositions - and cannot individualize either...
Whether a person is predisposed to murder through genetics or from learned behavior is not the burden of law enforcement or of the citizens it protects. It may be of interest to psychologists and geneticists but in the end the murderer has to be put away lest he decide to murder again.
Now that we have mapped the genome, it is only a matter of time before this any many other genetic questions can be answered, including the God gene. There are some 1 billion rungs on the genetic ladder but with dozens of teams working together around the globe it won't be long before we can not only answer these questions but also correct certain genetic abnormalities as we see fit. But "who" is to decide "what" is another story in itself (and a sticky one I would imagine).
James S.: But "who" is to decide "what" is another story in itself (and a sticky one I would imagine).
VERY sticky indeed. Who's going to decide what is needed and/or allowed? How are we going to reconcile genetic correction going with free will? How are we going to abide by current ethics and different societies' perception of them?...
I came across this book, it's titled "Nudge" and deals with "libertarian paternalism", you can find a summary and a short review at this link: http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/01/25/libertarian-paternalism/
Post a Comment